Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
Papan Sarkar @ Pranab – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. The correctness of the judgment and order dated 08.12.2015 and 10.12.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Raiganj in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 21 of 2013 has been assailed by the appellants.
2. By the said Judgement and order, the Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 /201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life each without remission and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years each for commission of offence under /34 of the IPC .
3. All of them are further sentenced to suffer for rigorous imprisonment of three years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months each for commission of offence under Sections 201 /34 IPC . Both the sentences will run concurrently. Benefit of set off under Section 428 of the CrPC was rejected.
PROSECUTION CASE:
4. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect that on 30.10.2012 at about 4.00 PM, Samir Ku
Circumstantial evidence, when complete and consistent, can sustain a conviction without direct eyewitness testimony; minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with the prosecution required to establish every link beyond reasonable doubt.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain, with reasonable doubt favoring the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
